ANAHEIM, CA – Citing “public safety concerns,” the prosecution challenged a
motion here this week in Orange County Superior Court to have bail reduced from $150,000 to
$10,000-$15,000 for an accused here who claimed not to have a steady flow of income.
The accused is charged with two felonies, contacting a minor with intent to commit a specified offense
and meeting with a minor to commit a lewd act.
Deputy Public Defender Nicholas Valk based the motion to reduce bail on the Humphrey court
decision, which found accused people cannot be incarcerated solely because they are unable to
afford bail. The accused was unemployed and earns a sporadic income around $1,000 a month when
helping his father at a construction job.
DPD Valk also said the accused was not a flight risk since he lived with his parents in Lake Forest,
had been a resident of Orange County since he was one year old, was involved in his community, and
did “church activities with his family.”
The accused had been in the Marines for five years since he was 17, was deployed twice, and now at
25 years old has no prior criminal record.
DPD Valk concluded his argument, “I don’t think the current bail is reasonable,” to which the prosecution
said she wanted the bail to stay where it was for “public safety concerns.”
The prosecution said the accused had driven “to Lake Forest from Irvine with condoms on his person” while
on the way to someone he believed was 14 years old.
The prosecution was especially concerned with internet and social media access if the accused were to be
released, to which Judge Derek G. Johnson asked DPD Valk, “is there a way we can monitor…
internet access?”
DPD Valk said there could be restrictions put in place, but Judge Johnson argued, “I’m inclined to
leave the bail at where it is because I don’t think there’s any reason to monitor his internet behavior,”
stating it may be considered unreasonable search and seizure.
Instead, Judge Johnson said the case should be shown to the Pretrial Assessment and Release
System (PARS) to see if the accused qualified for a program.
After several other cases, the case was recalled because DPD Valk had not realized that the
accused’s mother was in the room, claiming that this familial support as well as the accused’s service
for the community should warrant the bail to be reduced.
The prosecution reiterated, “I think he should be supervised,” just as Judge Johnson received notice the
accused had been approved for PARS, with one of their conditions being the accused could not be on
social media.
The prosecution followed up this condition by saying she thought, “the internet in general” should be
restricted.
Judge Johnson asked DPD Valk, “can he live without the internet?” to which DPD Valk replied “yes.”
The hearing concluded when Judge Johnson released the accused to PARS with no internet usage
allowed, but told the accused, “if I hear that you’re not cooperating with PARS…you will be remanded
(to jail). You toe the line with the people at PARS.”
